Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2012-08

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 August 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

The following discussion is closed:Nomination for deletion retracted Jeepday(talk) 12:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an unlinked piece without any means of verification which has been sitting around for 6 years. The route is well known and the preamble not very interesting. The text is much the same as on a website: Today in Science History, taken from the New York Times, except that has a lot more interesting context. It's not easy to see where to link it from. Ideas anyone? Chris55 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The lack of a verifiable source is a problem. I've added the wortk to two portals, so it is no longer orphaned. Otherwise, it's a newspaper article from the South Bend News-Times. Potentially we will host the rest of the issue, and other issues, at some time in the future. It will be linked to that, and some related portals, at that point. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. "South Bend" seems to cover more than Indiana but that's probably its main stomping ground. I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. Chris55 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The paper apparently started in St. Joseph County, Indiana and the highway was first proposed in Indiana, so I picked that state. It covers several though; I did consider Highway engineering under Portal:Technology which is still a possibility. While the article is not the worst case on Wikisource, the lack of source is still a problem. It's your call on withdrawal. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Keep as part of babel package, but delete [MediaWiki:Babel-footer-url] as un-needed. Jeepday(talk) 22:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this category while doing some maintenance (it was an orphan category) and I'm not sure what use it provides that other categories do not. On the other hand, it might have some purpose I can't see, so I don't want to do anything without checking first. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest deletion. It doesn't have much utility - Category:User languages is used to find users by language, and the table doesn't belong in category namespace. --Aplomb (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that I created it as it was a redlink that comes packaged with the {{#babel:}} extension. I thought that the cat was preferable to the redlink. I have particular attachment. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I made the change temporarily but Billinghurst is correct; Category:Babel - Users by language was the default "url" set in MediaWiki messages. The new Cat doesn't make sense to me either since it is a sub-cat of the Babel one to begin with but admitedly I know litle about Babel to be honest about it.

Anyway, just delete the now altered [MediaWiki:Babel-footer-url], and the system default should be restored if the change turns out to be unhelpful in any way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Keep as is, No consensus for delete or move to portal space. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This page presents Perikles as an author of Perikles' Funerary Oration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles%27_Funeral_Oration. However, that is an imagined speech put into Perikles' mouth by Thucydides. It may (or may not) bear some relation to a speech actually given by Perikles; but we do not have that actual speech, just Thucydides version of it. The wikipedia article, for instance, says this:

Indented line Thucydides says early in his History that the speeches presented are not verbatim records, but are intended to represent the main ideas of what was said and what was, according to Thucydides, "called for in the situation".[5] Pericles likely delivered a speech at the end of the first year of the war, but there is no consensus as to what degree Thucydides' record resembles Pericles' actual speech.[6] Another confusing factor is that Pericles is known to have delivered another funeral oration in 440 BC during the Samian War.[7] It is possible that elements of both speeches are represented in Thucydides' version. Nevertheless Thucydides was extremely meticulous in his documentation, and records the varied certainty of his sources each time. Significantly he begins recounting the speech by saying: "Περικλῆς ὁ Ξανθίππου ... ἔλεγε τοιάδε", i.e. "Pericles, son of Xanthippos, spoke like this". Had he quoted the speech verbatim, he would have written "τάδε" ("this", or "these words") instead of "τοιάδε" ("like this" or "words like these").

There aren't any other works attributed to Perikles, so he's not an author and therefore there he has no need for an author page 130.195.124.56 13:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a close recounting of what Pericles said; I'm happy enough to leave that on the author page with all due stipulation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we *might* have a close recounting. Or it might be a fantasy speech that Thucydides has thrown into the mouth of Perikles (when writing his histories 40 years later!), because in Thucydides' view the narrative at that point called for a precis of the greatness and virtues of Athens at its height (i.e. before the war). It's like saying that Braveheart provides evidence for William Wallace as a speechmaker. 130.195.124.56 01:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

keep author page. You may be correct in what you are saying, and that would mean that we would label the work with the words that you mention, not the author page, especially not delete the author page. An author page is to direct people to works that are (purported, alleged, reputed, ghosted, … to be or actually) written by an author, they are our construct of a finding and collation aid. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per billinghurst. It makes sense to have an author page to inform readers that a particular work has been misattributed or loosely attributed to that author. BD2412T 02:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Keep, no consensus for delete. Jeepday(talk) 22:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of two publications of The Bell Buoy. One could argue that it could be transwikified to books or university; neither have existing projects for Rudyard Kipling currently. Unsure what to do. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it effectively a disambiguation page? It's referenced from Author:Rudyard Kipling/Poetry. Personally I think all poems should appear as subpages of the works, but that's not WS policy. Chris55 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The page looks fine as it is. I don't see any difference from any other versions pages. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know if we were in the business of making comparisons between texts. We have each version seen here, and the wikipedia article could cover the differences. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep I think this is valid presentation for Wikisource.--BirgitteSB 02:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Keep, no consensus for delete. License pd-old. Jeepday(talk) 22:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A page with many Emily Bronte poems on it. Is it just a bunch of poems posted on the same page, or is it the contents of a manuscript? If the latter, is it out of copyright? Tentatively proposed for speedy deletion by Londonjackbooks, with a request for a second opinion. I thought it better to bring it here. Hesperian 03:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Without seeing the source it is hard to address copyright, but assuming the header is accurate, then should all be {{PD-old}} "written 14 September, 1846, source: Brown, Helen; Mott, Joan, eds (1938). "Contents of Manuscript". Gondal Poems by Emily Jane Bronte. Oxford: The Shakespeare Head Press. pp. 35—47.". The problem is that the header indicates an partial work, which we normally don't have on WS, additionally all the separate poems should already be available at Author:Emily Brontë/Index of Titles. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

delete it seems a mish mash or a partial, and without more evidence I am not inclined to keep — billinghurstsDrewth 05:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is linked from w:Gondal (fictional country) which has the comment "This poem (and the alternative version poem 44) were written after Wuthering Heights and are the only surviving writings from the last 2½ years of Emily's life.". Since it wasn't published in The Complete Poems of Emily Brontë it presumably has no other home on WS. Chris55 (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. On investigation, I take this to be a full poem, sourced as described in the header. We do have a long history of accepting individual full poems, and the source itself is in the public domain (posthumous UK works expire fifty years from publication, which predates URAA date, so this is PD in the US). Hesperian 01:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an isolated chapter from an obscure work by w:Theophanes Confessor, loaded 4 years back with no further attempts to add other chapters, source information or scans. Chris55 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete due to not having the rest of the work added.—Zhaladshar(Talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:Deleted, self promotion, where no PD works exist. Jeepday(talk) 23:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of self-promotion to me. All his works are well within copyright protection though he has added a dozen or so Indian works that he translated to English for en.WS .

At any rate, if we aren't hosting Dr. Martin 'the hammer' Luther King and the like any time soon, then the 'nickname' and the title must also go in his case.

I've brought this here because apparently we've already had "words" over his OTRS-less pic of himself months ago. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a similar article w:Krant M. L. Verma with a COI tag on it, though it survived a deletion discussion. But this is less relevant with no PD material so I support its deletion. Chris55 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is slightly more involved than G4 redundant speedy deletion so I figured I'd put it here. The above two and Spanish Constitution of 1978 are electronic editions of the same translation of the same document (despite the names suggesting they're different). They have a number of typographical differences between them (e.g. Wikisource talk:WikiProject References to Wikisource#Spanish Constitution between the first two). The first is mystery meat. The second is highly problematic (missing articles, untranslated articles). The third one (not up for deletion) is by no means perfect but it's the best available. Prosody (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the one titled (1992) is matched against an uploaded, indexed and PR'd file so I'm against deleting that version regardless of whatever "year" it really may be. If it needs fixing (i.e. missing scans) then I'm not sure 'keep' is warranted. If its a matter of a lack of translation here and there, maybe you should address the policy of Indexed PR'ing of non-English materials in general rather than try to justify deletion merely due to an instance of poor execution of the same in that case.

The third one looks like the (1992) one as far as I can tell except its annotated with sidenotes post-ratification. I'm leaning keep the 2 with a source file and loose the one without. What those 2 should be named is not clear yet. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I put the second one up thinking that while it's worthwhile to transcribe any and all physical print editions of text, electronic editions are beneath that--they don't have the same considerations in creation of semi-permanence and significance. That could well be a minority opinion though. Prosody (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with you 100% but in this instance the (1992) one most likely mirrors the true original signed by hand. Whenever you have side-notes in any "legal-ish" work, its an indication of post-enrollment or pre-codification; an intent to merge or to complement along with other bodies of similar work (i.e. the existing and yet-to-come statutes of law). I guarantee you - the version that is locked away or in a museum that Spanish lawmakers actually signed into enforcement did not have side-notes for easy skimming of each section/article/purpose. All that you have done is mirror the government printer's interpretation of the Constitution done for codification, etc. purposes while the online (or 1992) version attempts to mirror what most likely was actually signed. I know this must seem like splitting hairs to most people but it is an important distinction when it comes to the language of law and its interpretation. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As the primary proofreader of the 1992 version, I'd hate to see it go. As a biased party, I'll withhold from any delete/keep vote. As an opinion, I would like to discuss the point that Prosody has brought up; the value of the digital editions. I too, against my own work with the 1992 edition, agree with them to an extent, but I think that we should have a rough standard for this. Selection, prohibiting editions seems like a mess, but maybe a guideline in the future would be worthwhile in establishing. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)